[jamornh]

This isn't absolutely true, if ideas are worthless without execution then corporations would never spend millions and millions inside their R&D departments creating inventions which may or may not come to market.

The assumption that ideas are always trivial isn't correct, sometimes the inventor spends years and years perfecting a design in his own garage, but doesn't have the means to bring it to market. Should the inventor not get rewarded for his work? Nothing is wrong with the final invention nor is it from the lack of trying to bring it to market, he just doesn't have the financing necessary to pull it off.

[chongli]

Should the inventor not get rewarded for his work?

The patent isn't a reward for his work, though. The patent is a reward for having an idea and filing for it. The inventor could just as easily spend years in the garage and come up with nothing patent-able, thereby obtaining no reward.

[sliverstorm]

The patent is the opportunity to be rewarded (paid) for your work, instead of ripped off. Sans patent, BigCo just takes your great idea.

[chongli]

Sans patents, BigCos are forced to compete in a commoditized market even more cutthroat than generic drugs (since those are at least regulated by the FDA).

[CyberDildonics]

> R&D departments creating inventions

Those aren't ideas any more

[hueving]

But a society doesn't need to reward people for tinkering and failing to bring it to the wider population.

[euyyn]

Society isn't rewarding it, as it's not the government who buys the patent from the inventor. The patent system just lubricates a market that would still happen as long as NDAs are legal.